Download Re-Creating Shakespeare for an Eighteenth

The University of Akron
IdeaExchange@UAkron
Selected Papers of the Ohio Valley Shakespeare
Conference
Literary Magazines
November 2014
Jean-François Ducis: Re-Creating Shakespeare for
an Eighteenth-Century Audience
Amy Drake
Franklin University, [email protected]
Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be
important as we plan further development of our repository.
Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/spovsc
Part of the Literature in English, British Isles Commons, and the Theatre and Performance
Studies Commons
Recommended Citation
Drake, Amy (2012) "Jean-François Ducis: Re-Creating Shakespeare for an Eighteenth-Century Audience," Selected
Papers of the Ohio Valley Shakespeare Conference: Vol. 5 , Article 4.
Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/spovsc/vol5/iss2012/4
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Literary Magazines at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the
institutional repository of The University of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Selected Papers of the Ohio Valley Shakespeare Conference by an authorized administrator of
IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected].
Jean-François Ducis: Re-Creating Shakespeare
for an Eighteenth-Century Audience
Amy Drake, Franklin University
F
rench playwright Jean-François Ducis (1733-1816) forged a
career out of reinventing the works of Shakespeare for the
French stage. The adaptations penned by Ducis during the
eighteenth century paved the way for theaters ever after to reinvent and
update classic plays in a style that resonates with the playwright’s new
audiences. Key to this success is his tendency to set a classic play in a
non-traditional time and place, but with which the audience can associate
and connect. Ducis introduced Shakespearean plays to audiences in
France, on the continent, and in South America, and his plays were
commercially successful. He made a substantial contribution to French
theater, and he was made a member of the French Academy. Therefore,
he should have retained an exalted position in theater history; however,
his name has become but a footnote in theater history.
My interest in Ducis’s work was piqued when I enrolled in a
graduate course in Shakespearean theater at The Ohio State University.
For a class project I researched the original 17901 script of Ducis’s
adaptation of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, housed in The Ohio State
University Theater Research Institute: as a result this script was
displayed in a university library exhibition on Shakespeare and I began
work on bringing a reading of Ducis’s play to the stage. I then had Ducis’s
script translated by Elizabeth Rachel Willis, a graduate student in the
OSU Department of French, for the purpose of performing Ducis’s
adaptation of Macbeth with my theatrical organization, the Drake Oration
Company. The performance was held at the Davis Discovery Center in
Columbus, Ohio.2 During a post-performance “talk-back,” members of
the audience asked questions of the actors and director about the
production, before a reception at a local art gallery.
The performance at the Davis Discovery Center was open to the
public and admission was charged on a “pay-what-you-like” basis,
allowing students and patrons of limited means to attend. Semi-costumed
actors performed in battery-operated “candlelight,” in keeping with
traditional lighting of the eighteenth-century French stage. Some costume
accessories like a dagger and crown were used to suggest action and
47
SELECTED PAPERS of the OVSC
Vol. V, 2012 position. The entrance and exit music was from André Ernest Modeste
Grétry’s Andromaque.
John Lough attributes Ducis’s fame to writing for the common
man rather than for the educated elite who may have read Shakespeare’s
unabridged works. Ducis’s plays were successful in their day in terms of
attendance. According to Lough, Ducis’s Romeo and Juliet (1772)
attracted over 16,000 spectators during a nineteen-performance run,
which established Ducis’s reputation as a popular playwright (180-81).
Lough cites a 1783 letter written by theater critic J. F. de La Harpe who
stated that the modern “plebian audience” did not have the same high
standards as the “select spectators” of previous periods (222). Based on
the attendance figures, the plebian audiences enjoyed Ducis’s production
and made the works commercially successful.
Ducis conceived of staging Macbeth decades before actually
debuting his adaptation on Monday, January 12, 1784 at the Théâtre du
Faubourg St-Germain (Golder 166). Golder notes this long incubation
period by referencing a letter written by Ducis on May 14, 1772 to Prince
Louis-Eugène in which he wrote ‘Je m’occupe de Macbeth’ (“I am dealing
with Macbeth”). Macbeth is mentioned next in the records of the
Comédie-Française on November 29, 1773 (163). Perhaps the earliest
extant version of Ducis’s Macbeth is the Beljame MS Golder has found
dated 1751, now in the collection of the Bibliothèque de l’Université de
Paris, which predates the Folger MS, perhaps by several years (167, 181).
This is an early example of Ducis’s habit of rewriting and revising his
plays.
Ducis worked solely from the translated Pierre-Antoine de La
Place texts during his work with Shakespeare from 1772 through 1778
(Golder 167). When Le Tourneur translated a collection of Shakespeare’s
plays in 1779, Ducis began incorporating these translations into his
works. The publication of Le Tourneur’s translations motivated Ducis to
complete his own adaptations of the Shakespeare plays; he began with
King Lear (Le Roi Lear) before tackling Macbeth, which he read on
Saturday, September 21, 1782 to his actors, “who accepted it by 14 votes
to one” (164-65).
The Ducis production of Macbeth was delayed and the reasons for
this seem to be a combination of family crises and business
complications. Golder attributes the delay to the death of Ducis’s eldest
48
JEAN-FRANÇOIS DUCIS: RE-CREATING SHAKESPEARE
daughter, Laure-François, from tuberculosis, the same disease that had
killed his wife (165), while Joseph H. McMahon states that Ducis’s wife
and two daughters died from an “unidentified plague” (15). Monaco,
meanwhile, writes that the play “was delayed because of the insistence on
the part of two actresses, Mlle Clairon and Mme Vestris (who was to be
his Lady Macbeth), that he make certain revisions” (139). The changes
requested by these actresses are unknown. In any event, Golder relates
that the play was finally cast in August 1783 and a reading was held to
give the actors and interested parties an introduction to the script (Golder
165).
Ducis’s forte was in staging Shakespearean plays for his own
audience, and the new productions did require him to reinvent some
scenes to suit the French sensibilities of the day. In Ducis’s telling,
Macbeth becomes a tragic, guilt-ridden murderer who, Golder states,
“stoically accepts the inevitability of retribution” (180). The play’s
banquet scene was changed because eating was an activity reserved for
French comedy and considered inappropriate for tragedy. Ducis gets
around this by having the ghost appear at a coronation ceremony rather
than a banquet. It was, however, acceptable to show the “nocturnal attack
on the palace and ensuing pandemonium, under cover of which the
murder is committed” (181), illustrating audiences’ willingness to accept
the sin of murder on stage, but not gluttony.
Ducis had reason to be very excited about his first staging of
Macbeth, because it attracted the attention of the Comte de Provence,
who later became Louis XVIII. He appointed Ducis as his secrétaire des
commandements, or advisor and confident to the French royal
household. The run of this play brought in 4,688 livres, the largest box
office of any Ducis play with this company (Golder 166). Golder goes on
to report that Ducis postponed publishing Macbeth until 1790, even
though some of Ducis’s other plays were published within weeks after
opening on the stage (167). Monaco states that “because of innumerable
alterations and corrections not only before but also during the first run of
seven performances it is harder than usual to reconstruct how his play
was staged at a particular moment” (140). The frequent changes in the
script indicate that either Ducis was unsure of his own setting or the
stakes were very high in terms of pressure from his patron to produce a
49
SELECTED PAPERS of the OVSC
Vol. V, 2012 successful show. These numerous changes may also have been a factor in
delaying the publication of the play.
According to Jon Pemble, author of Shakespeare Goes to Paris,
the marriage of French plays and Shakespearean theater resulted in
“spectacle and ostentation” with less emphasis on the dialogue. As a
result, “French Shakespeare was, in a word, operatic” (95). Pemble
comments that although Ducis introduced Shakespeare’s works to the
French stage, Ducis has become a forgotten playwright. Pemble adds, “He
could neither speak nor read English, and his knowledge of Shakespeare
was derived entirely from the translations of La Place and Le Tourneur”
(Pemble 95-96). It is important to note that La Place translated only one
play in its entirety—Richard III. For the rest, he was content to
“summarise in a connecting narrative what seemed to him the less
important scenes. He also gave an abstract of the plots of twenty-six other
Shakespearean plays” (Ward).
Perhaps because of its dependence on La Place, Ducis’s uninspired
dialogue lacks the luster of Shakespeare’s poetic language. Pemble
proffers that Ducis took great liberties in adapting Shakespeare’s works
for the French stage; his “Macbeth had no witches (except as an optional
extra, never used), no porter, and no banquet, and it was many years
before a sleepwalking scene was added” (96). Monaco attributes Ducis’s
many changes from Shakespeare’s original text to La Place having “cut
and summarized many scenes, especially the comic and indecent ones”
(11), including those in Macbeth. In fact, some of Ducis’s numerous
revisions did include witches named Personage Un, Personage Deux and
Personage Trois in a collection published in 1845. In some versions, the
witches not do make an appearance at all (McMahon 20-21).
Ducis added and subtracted characters appearing in Shakespeare’s
play in order to clarify the story for an eighteenth-century French
audience. Pemble notes that Banquo was removed and unfamiliar
characters named Frédégonde, Iphyctone, Loclin and Séver were added
(96). Golder had this to say about character changes: “Frédégonde is
clearly Lady Macbeth. Queen consort to Chilpéric I of Tournai in the sixth
century, Frédégonde rose to power by causing Chilpéric to dissolve his
first marriage and to have his second wife strangled. She then removed
the king himself and ruled through her young son, Clotaire II” (171). This
leaves little doubt about Frédégonde’s sinister character, making her “a
50
JEAN-FRANÇOIS DUCIS: RE-CREATING SHAKESPEARE
classic villainess, the dynamic mainspring of the action and a resourceful
instigator of crime” (193). In Ducis’s production, Lady Macbeth’s son has
a role in the play; Lady Macbeth is also consistent in her lust for power,
and she is unrepentant, unlike in most versions of the play where there is
a clear transition in her persona from feminine to femme-fatale.
Ducis took liberties to connect Shakespearean characters with
familiar personalities from folklore. This change, similar to the molding
of Lady Macbeth, was to provide his audience with insight into the
motives of the characters by aligning them with familiar characters from
folktales, mythology, and classical drama. The names of nonShakespearean characters in Ducis’s Macbeth were borrowed from the
cult of Ossian. For example, the character of Loclin represents other
warrior characters associated with Scandinavia; the character Salgar
represents a hunter, and the actor portraying Duncan’s son MalcômeSalgar carries a bow on stage (Golder 172). The names provide spectators
with historical echoes, and the props reinforce character types. Hecate,
for example, takes on new character names: Iphyctone (Erichtonne in
some plays), Golder suggests, is reinvented as a “Greek divinity.” Given
Ducis’s fascination with Greek tragedy, it is hardly surprising that Ducis
molds his characters to resemble Greek gods. This new Hecate goes into a
trance in order to make her predictions: she seems to be a combination of
Greek oracle and festival fortune-teller (181).
Ducis also incorporates operatic elements of special effects, as a
means of modernization, into his adaptations. Opera was well established
in France by Ducis’s day, and for this reason his Macbeth, as well as his
other Shakespearean adaptations, included references to the Bard’s work
with “a few basic themes, the occasional well-known phrase, a loose
treatment of time and place, and operatic stage effects” to connect the
Shakespearean adaptations with familiar musical performances of his day
(Pemble 97). Opera transforms a play into fantasy for adults, with
glamorous costumes, opulent sets and sumptuous set pieces, and vocal
music: all elements freeing theatrical performances from the
commonplace settings of traditional stage plays. Also, during the
eighteenth century,
[N]ew types of plays began to appear. One of these new types was
called, rather inappropriately, drame, meaning a serious work not
quite in the class of conventional tragedy. In this group were
51
SELECTED PAPERS of the OVSC
Vol. V, 2012 included the tragédie bourgeoise, dealing with commonplace
people and often ending in comparative happiness; also the sad or
tearful pieces (comédie larmoyante). There was also the
comedietta, a short piece, sometimes with music, resembling the
“one-acter” of vaudeville. (Bellinger)
These new forms of playwriting were concerned more with the individual
and personal relationships than with social issues. Eighteenth-century
France provided an especially auspicious time for Ducis to introduce his
Shakespearean adaptations, because audiences were open to experiencing
new forms of theater. The Shakespearean plays neatly fit the parameters
of the new drama, comedy, and tragedy plays.
This new era in theater was influenced in part by philosophy,
including the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. John Golder believes
that Ducis’s objective was to portray the character of Macbeth through
the lens of “Rousseau’s constructive view of human nature,” which
supports the position that “evil is not a part of man’s original nature;
secondly, that vice and error, being foreign to man’s constitution, are
introduced to it from the outside and change it for the worse and, thirdly,
that since man has an inherent capacity for good, no villain is beyond
redemption” (195). This assessment hints that Ducis was searching for
the humanity within Shakespeare’s characters and drawing it out through
Macbeth’s remorse. This may explain his omission of the witches in
Macbeth, as if he viewed them as completely dark characters outside the
realm of humanity. This argument does not take into account the female
characters, such as Lady Macbeth, who in Ducis’s production seem
beyond redemption.
Pemble argues that Ducis did not intend to authentically
reproduce Shakespearean plays but to make the works contemporary.
The changing political tide in late eighteenth-century France inspired
Ducis to initially create Macbeth “as a play of the ancien régime [which]
acquired a revolutionary slant when it was revived in 1790....but in the
later version the victorious Malcome (sic) becomes a constitutional
monarch. He is crowned as ‘first citizen’ (‘premier citoyen’), and bound by
oath to observe the book of the law (‘le livre de la loi’)” (99). This is a
reflection of the changed France after the Revolution. In order to gain a
following during a period of civil unrest, Ducis was in the difficult
position of pleasing his former royal patrons and those who were now in
52
JEAN-FRANÇOIS DUCIS: RE-CREATING SHAKESPEARE
power while still forging a connection with the theater-going public. He
accomplished this by creating multiple versions of each play which were
altered per performance, depending upon the audience in attendance.
Even though Ducis’s productions resonated with his public, some
theater critics of the day were harsh in their assessments. Pemble notes
that critics “La Harpe and Julien-Louis Geoffroy were especially hostile”
toward Ducis (219), and that critics who initially complained that Ducis
had “polluted French theatres with Shakespeare” later condemned his
works as “having disfigured Shakespeare beyond recognition” (98).
“However harshly Ducis was criticised as a dramatist in his own right,”
Golder says, “his essential conservatism made him preferable to
Shakespeare, whose name continued to be synonymous with vulgarity
and tastelessness throughout the period” (330). Pemble cites a review of
an 1839 revival of Othello, which stated that “the play “made a poor
showing” and the “old-fashioned speeches” produced “profound
boredom” in the auditorium (98). This review is consistent with Golder’s
assessment of early audience reaction to the performance: they learned of
much of the action through conversation and dialogues (191). Indeed,
there is not a great deal of action in Ducis’s Macbeth, and much of the
action is described in speeches.
Not all theater critics were opposed to the French renditions of
Shakespeare. McMahon comments that Ducis’s plays “were wellreceived…and won him a seat in the French Academy” (16). This honor
was bestowed upon Ducis when the death of Voltaire created an opening
in the Academy. As McMahon notes, this is ironic because of Voltaire’s
disdain for the Bard: “Voltaire weighed the values of the Shakespearean
oeuvre and found its creator appallingly wanting” (14).3
Other adaptations of Ducis’s Shakespearean plays remained in
production in France well into the nineteenth century at the ComédieFrançaise and the Odéon. Golder notes that Ducis’s Macbeth “did not
leave the Paris stage until 1842” (333). It remained in public favor for
decades, precipitating revivals for many years after the initial production.
Macbeth was brought back to the stage in 1798, somewhat closer to an
original Shakespearean text, with Talma and Mme Vestris in advanced
age again playing leading roles (Monaco 183). This was a significant
cultural event in which “Bonaparte, the future emperor, attended the
performance at the Théâtre Feydeau on April 22, 1798,” adding a sense of
53
SELECTED PAPERS of the OVSC
Vol. V, 2012 dignity to the occasion (183). Legendary actress Sarah Bernhardt
appeared in Ducis’s Lear at the Odéon Theater in the mid-nineteenth
century, helping to facilitate the widespread popularity of both
mainstream and adapted Shakespearean plays.
Ducis inspired other playwrights to create their own versions of
Shakespearean tales: according to Pemble, internationally renowned
novelist Alexander Dumas translated Hamlet. Dumas had “seen a
performance of the Ducis imitation in his youth, and he claimed to have
been so deeply impressed that he learnt the leading role by heart and
never forgot it” (109). Monaco examines other versions of Shakespeare’s
Macbeth: impressed by a performance in London, Ducis’s contemporary
G.-R. Lefebvre de Saint-Ildephont also wrote a version of Macbeth in
1783. Although Lefebvre’s version “shows consideration for historical
exactness” by dressing Lady Macbeth in traditional white mourning
(138),4 it was rejected by the Comédie-Française, since Ducis’s Macbeth
had already been accepted for production at this venue: it would have
been unusual for a theater to present two versions of the same play
during the same season. These Shakespearean productions may not have
occurred if Ducis had not made the plays accessible to French audiences.
Parisian theaters were ideally suited for staging Shakespeare’s
works because “ballet, pantomime, and supernatural effects,” new to
French productions, could be properly accommodated by the ComédieFrançaise (Pemble 166). Each of its theaters has a seating capacity of
about 2,000, which is greater than the number of seats in almost all
modern Broadway theaters. The French theaters of Ducis’s day were
equipped with “stage machinery and technical resources” allowing for
operatic staging of the plays, “replete with ancient, medieval, and modern
pageantry, battles, crowds, supernatural phenomena, and musical and
choreographic interludes” (166). Pemble reports that for Ducis’s Macbeth
at the Comédie-Française in 1784 “evocative gothic scenery was provided
and music was used to create an appropriate mood” (167). This statement
could be used to describe a modern-day operatic version of Macbeth;
however, this production also “featured the first appearance on the
French stage of a Shakespearean ghost” (167). It is historically significant
that the ghost appears in Ducis’s Macbeth, in which “there was no
Banquo, but murdered Duncan reappeared and shook his gory locks both
54
JEAN-FRANÇOIS DUCIS: RE-CREATING SHAKESPEARE
at Macbeth and at the audience” (167). Given that Ducis’s monologues
could be quite long, the audience may have welcomed the excitement.
Macbeth is still successfully being reinvented in the twenty-first
century. A recent modernized version was staged at the Ethel Barrymore
Theatre on Broadway starring Scottish-American actor Alan Cumming in
the title role of the “Scottish play.” The play ran from April 7 to July 14,
2013 and grossed over $5 million (“Broadway Grosses”). The production’s
website describes this intense version thus:
Directed by Tony winner John Tiffany (Once) and Andrew
Goldberg, this “stirring turn by Alan Cumming packing theatrical
thunder and lightning’ (Daily News) is set in a clinical room deep
within a dark psychiatric unit. Cumming is the lone patient,
reliving the infamous story and inhabiting each role himself.
Closed circuit television camera watch the patient’s every move as
the walls of the psychiatric ward come to life in a visually stunning
multi-media theatrical experience. You cannot miss Alan
Cumming in this breathtaking 100-minute “radical re-imagining”
(Variety) of Shakespeare’s notorious tale of desire, ambition and
the supernatural. (“About the Show”)
This latest production proves that there are still new ways of exploring
the Bard’s works and re-imagining the title character, just as Ducis did
over two centuries ago. Even the Royal Shakespeare Company has toured
updated and abbreviated performances of well-known plays, such as the
2012 international run of King Lear, which was reduced to seventy-five
minutes in order to make it more palatable to young audiences. Strategic
cuts, such as those made by the Royal Shakespeare Company, and
changes of setting, such as the relocation of action in the Cumming
production, are the types of alterations Ducis made in bringing
Shakespeare to his audiences.
Ducis played a pivotal role in making Shakespeare’s works
accessible on a global scale: audiences in Spain, Italy, and Argentina were
first exposed to Shakespeare through Ducis’s translations. These works
were also performed in Sweden, Belgium, Holland, Brazil, Poland,
Turkey, and Russia (Golder 334). Ducis’s plays may have provided the
impetus for audiences to seek out other translations of Shakespearean
works. Perhaps updating the time period makes the works more
55
SELECTED PAPERS of the OVSC
Vol. V, 2012 accessible to some theatergoers: Ducis took this approach in recreating
classic plays for eighteenth-century French audiences.
Ducis’s name is not often mentioned as one the great figures in the
history of theater. There are three overarching reasons for the
playwright’s obscurity: most existing copies of his plays remain in the
original French, Ducis created many versions of most of his plays (which
makes it difficult to establish the time and location associated with each
version or to pinpoint a definitive version), and the original works of
Shakespeare have stood the test of time by resonating with subsequent
generations in ways that Ducis’s plays have failed to do. Ducis’s works
seemed old-fashioned to audiences within decades of their premieres. In
spite of these points, Ducis was a popular playwright in his day: a claim
supported by attendance and box office figures. His lasting contribution
to theater is the interest his adaptations generated in exploring
Shakespeare’s original works, which continues to this day.
56
JEAN-FRANÇOIS DUCIS: RE-CREATING SHAKESPEARE
Notes
1. Ducis’s translation appeared under the title Macbeth: Tragédie: Remise au theater le
premier juin 1790 (Paris: Académie Française, 1790).
2. This theater was built in 1927 as a home for the Players Club, later Players Theatre. When
Players Theatre moved out of the space in 1989 it was taken over by the City of Columbus and
became the Davis Discovery Center, a performing arts venue for young people which is
available for community use (Davis Discovery Center). The Drake Oration Company
performed Ducis’s Macbeth at this theater on May 11, 2012.
3. Voltaire states in the eighteenth of his Philosophical Letters, “On Tragedy,” that “The
English had a regular theatre, as well as the Spaniards, while the French had only platforms”
(346). If witnessing Ducis’s French interpretations of Shakespearean plays formed Voltaire’s
opinion of the Bard’s work, he may have found the plays more enjoyable on the English stage
rather than on a French “platform.” However, Voltaire goes on to say that Shakespeare
“created the theater. His genius was at once strong and abundant, natural and sublime, but
without the smallest spark of taste, and without the slightest knowledge of the rules.…[T]he
merit of this author has been the ruin of the English stage” (346). One may infer that Voltaire
was referring to the content of the works rather than the execution. Voltaire himself admits
that it was “very difficult to translate [Shakespeare’s] fine verses,” and he implores us to
“always remember, that when you see a translation, you perceive only a faint copy of a
beautiful picture” (347). In translating Hamlet’s soliloquy into French, Voltaire sought only
to capture the essence of the scene, not to produce a word-for-word translation, which would,
as he put it, “enervate the sense” and he invokes the Biblical quotation, “The letter kills, and
the spirit giveth life” (348). Pemble notes that “Voltaire, who relished the opera, had
reckoned that its intrusion into the tragic stage was going too far. Hearing of [Ducis’s]
Hamlet in 1769, he complained that the ‘action’ and ‘pantomime’ were overdone” (172). This
comment seems to contrast starkly with Voltaire’s generalization about the staid French
stage.
4. As portraiture of the era shows, wearing white was the official sign of mourning worn by
women of royal blood or high-ranking courtiers. In a painting by François Clouet (c. 15201572), “Mary, Queen of Scots is shown, aged 19, in white mourning (en deuil blanc) to mark
the loss of three members of her immediate family within a period of 18 months” (The Royal
Collection).
57
Vol. V, 2012 SELECTED PAPERS of the OVSC
Works Cited
“About the Show.” Macbeth on Broadway. Web. 2 Dec. 2013.
<http://macbethonbroadway.com/about.html>.
Bellinger, Martha Fletcher. “French Drama in the Eighteenth Century.”
Excerpt from A Short History of the Drama. New York: Henry
Holt & Company, 1927. 268-76. Theatre Database. Web. 2 Dec.,
2013.
<http://www.theatredatabase.com/18th_century/french_drama_
001.html>.
“Broadway Grosses -- Macbeth.” Broadwayworld. Web. 2 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.broadwayworld.com/grosses/MACBETH>.
Davis Discovery Center. “History of the Columbus Performing Arts
Center.” Columbus Recreation and Parks Department’s Davis
Performing Arts Programs. Web. 2 Dec. 2013.
<http://davisprograms.com/historycpac.html>.
Ducis, Jean-François. Macbeth: Tragédie: Remise au theater le premier
juin 1790. Paris: Académie Française, 1790. Print.
Golder, John. Shakespeare for the Age of Reason: The Earliest Stage
Adaptations of Jean-François Ducis, 1769-1792. Oxford: The
Voltaire Foundation, 1992. Print.
Lough, John. Paris Theatre Audiences in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth
Centuries. London: Oxford UP, 1972. Print.
“Mary Queen of Scots (1542-1587).” The Royal Collection. Web. 2 Dec.
2013.
<http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/eGallery/object.asp?searchTe
xt=Clouet&x=0&y=0&object=403429&row=4&detail=about>.
McMahon, Joseph H. “Ducis: Unkindest Cutter?” Yale French Studies 3033: Shakespeare in France. New Haven: Yale French Studies,
1964: 14-25. Print.
Monaco, Marion. Shakespeare on the French Stage in the Eighteenth
Century. Paris: Didier, 1974. Print.
Pemble, John. Shakespeare Goes to Paris: How the Bard Conquered
France. London: Hambledon and London, 2005. Print.
58
JEAN-FRANÇOIS DUCIS: RE-CREATING SHAKESPEARE
Voltaire. “On Tragedy.” Candide and Other Writings by Voltaire. Ed.
Haskell M. Block. New York: The Modern Library, 1956. 346-49.
Print.
Ward, A.W. et al. ”Shakespeare on the Continent: Voltaire’s Last Attacks.”
The Cambridge History of English and American Literature. New
York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1907–21. Bartleby.com, 2000. Web. 2
Dec. 2013. <http://www.bartleby.com/215/1214.html>
Willis, Rachel Elizabeth. Trans. Ducis’ Translation of William
Shakespeare’s Macbeth. 2012. Print.
59